CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME WET

Transcription

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME WET
GRANULATION FERTILIZERS IN MALAYSIA
A SURVEY REPORT (2014)
ALBERT HENG
Argus FMB Asian Technical Fertilizer 2014
BACKGROUND
OIL PALM is the main crop in MALAYSIA
1. Tremendous expansion over the last 50 years
2. Great demand for fertilizers and labour
3. Notable shift in recent years from straight fertilizers to
complete NPKMg+B fertilizers such as:
•
•
•
•
Dry powder blends
Dry granular blends
Wet granulation blends
Dry granulation blends
|
2
BACKGROUND
Reasons for Complete NPK(+Mg+B) fertilizers
1. Balanced nutrients in each application
2. To facilitate completion of fertilizer program
• Narrowed window of good weather months in a year
• Straight fertilizers (7-9 rounds per year)
• NPK(+Mg+B) fertilizers (3-4 rounds)
3. Convenience compared to carrying many straight
components
4. Government policy objectives (e.g. padi subsidy)
5. Granular forms are suitability for mechanical or aerial
application
|
4
BACKGROUND
Types of Complete NPK(+Mg+B) Fertilizers
1. Dry powder blends
• Blend of different non-granular components (2-5)
• Tendency to segregate because of uneven particle sizes
• Usually dusty because of the use of ground RP
• Some blends are prone to turn wet or cake quickly
2. Granular bulk blends
• Blend of granular components (2-5)
• Less segregation due to more homogenous granule size
• Less dusty and can be applied mechanically
• More expensive than dry powder blends (granulation cost)
3. Wet-granulation and dry-granulation blends (next slide)
|
5
BACKGROUND
3. Wet-granulation and dry-granulation blends
a. Also referred to as “local compound fertilizers”
b. Recent increase in demand for such products
c. In 2013, there are
a. 25 granulation plants
b. Owned by 19 different groups
c. Total capacity of : 3.0 mil mt/yr
d. Production in 2013 : 1.8 mil mt (60% of total capacity)
e. 35% of total fertilizer consumption in country
d. One more plant at 120,000 mt capacity – end 2014
completion
e. One existing plant - shut down - replacement plant planned
f. Usually more expensive than the other fertilizers mentioned
|
6
BACKGROUND
Why this study:
The “quality” of many straight fertilizers may be quite easily assessed
visually, but this is not easy in the case of multi-component blends.
3 Questions:
1. Granulated blends often appear “good” - even sized granules,
dust-free, dry, etc, but are the chemical characteristics as good?
2. Can these granulated blends fulfilled the purpose of supplying
the nutrient requirements by replacing straight fertilizers?
3. Are the additional cost for such products justified by the quality?
|
7
STUDY AND METHODOLOGY
•
•
•
•
•
•
Study limited to wet-granulation blends only for this study
22 samples were taken (16 - E.M’sia, 6 - W.M’sia)
Fertilizers produced and supplied by 6 different local companies
Samples taken from stocks at end-user locations (plantations)
Batch sizes of between 7.5mt to 100mt
Sampling and sampling preparation followed Malaysian
Standards according to SIRIM (Ref: MS 417: Part 1: 1994) :
• Samples taken using a probe
• Reduction of samples using a sample rifle
• Analysis carried out at a reputable laboratory of a plantation
research group
• Analysis results rated according to the permissible tolerance limit
of 8% for each single nutrients (N, P2O5, K2O, MgO), and 5% for
sum of declared nutrients
|
9
SCOPE OF THIS STUDY
• Limited to the chemical characteristics of the product samples
• No study made on the plants that produced these products, and
the specific wet-granulation process (which can vary greatly)
• No producers are named in this report
• Any product formulae that is “unique” to any producers will be
“blacked-out” in this report, and only the variations of each
nutrient against SIRIM standards published
• No attempts will be made to try and explain the variations
• No suggestions will be offered on how to improve the product
quality
The above scopes will be expanded in an extension of this study, to
include NPKMg+B products other than wet-granulation blends.
| 12
RESULTS: MOISTURE CONTENT
• Moisture content of all but 6 samples exceeded the 2% maximum
allowed.
• Average of all samples was 2.8%
• Maximum moisture was 9.1% in a sample that was also totally out
in terms of nutrient analysis (SDK5)
• Lowest moisture was 1.1%
• Almost all samples with Urea-N had high moisture content
• Samples are analyzed for the nutrients on an as-received basis,
thus the moisture content has a bearing on the results
| 13
RESULTS: NUTRIENT CONTENT (1)
SAMPLE: JB 1
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
12
11.7
-3%
P205
6
7.1
19%
WSP
K20
22
21.0
-5%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
3
1
4.0
1.6
0.27
32%
-48%
-73%
Total
44.0
41.7
-5.3%
Remarks K2O/N
1.8
1.8
0%
SAMPLE: SJ 3
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
12
12.3
3%
P205
6
6.5
8%
WSP
K20
22
20.5
-7%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
3
1.00
3.5
2.1
0.43
17%
-29%
-57%
Total
44.0
41.8
-5%
Remarks K2O/N
1.8
1.7
-10%
| 14
SAMPLE: SDK 1
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
12
12.8
7%
P205
6
15.2
153%
WSP
SAMPLE: TWU 2
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
12
9.0
-25%
P205
6
6.9
15%
WSP
4.7
K20
22
16.6
-25%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
3
1.2
0.2
-61%
-92%
Total
43.0
44.8
4%
Remarks K2O/N
1.8
1.3
-30%
K20
22
26.9
22%
Mg0 WS-MgO
3
3.4
0.7
13%
-78%
Total
43.0
43.4
1%
Remarks K2O/N
1.8
3.0
65%
| 15
SAMPLE: SDK 5
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
12
3.9
-67%
P205
12
6.7
-44%
WSP
K20
17
17.6
4%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
2
1
8.0
0.7
0.08
301%
-67%
-92%
Total
44.0
29.0
-34%
Remarks K2O/N
1.4
4.5
220%
SAMPLE: TWU 3
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
12
10.9
-9%
P205
12
12.6
5%
WSP
K20
17
18.1
6%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
2
1
2.3
0.4
0.64
14%
-82%
-36%
Total
44.0
44.5
-3%
Remarks K2O/N
1.4
1.7
15%
| 16
SAMPLE: SJ 2
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
12
12.9
8%
P205
12
11.8
-2%
WSP
4
0.2
-94%
K20
17
20.0
18%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
2
1.0
2.5
0.6
0.68
26%
-70%
-32%
Total
44.0
46.0
5%
Remarks K2O/N
1/3 WSP 1.4
1.6
10%
SAMPLE: SDK 2
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
12
10.8
-10%
P205
12
12.5
4%
WSP
K20
17
17.6
4%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
2
1.0
2.5
0.4
0.59
26%
-80%
-41%
Total
44.0
41.9
-5%
Remarks K2O/N
1.4
1.6
15%
| 17
SAMPLE: SDK 3
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
12
12.4
3%
P205
12
15.2
27%
WSP
K20
17
7.3
-57%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
2.0
1.0
4.8
0.4
0.6
138%
-79%
-40%
Total
44.0
36.0
-18%
Remarks K2O/N
1.4
0.6
-60%
SAMPLE: SDK 7
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
12
11.4
-5%
P205
12
11.8
-2%
WSP
K20
17
17.0
0%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
2
2.1
0.6
5%
-72%
Total
43.0
40.8
-3%
Remarks K2O/N
1.4
1.5
5%
4.0
| 18
SAMPLE: LDU 5
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
12
11.2
-7%
P205
12
4.2
-65%
WSP
K20
17
32.2
89%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
2
2.6
0.8
30%
-62%
Total
43.0
48.4
13%
Remarks K2O/N
1.4
2.9
105%
SAMPLE: SDK 4
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
15
10.9
-27%
P205
15
11.5
-23%
WSP
K20
6
16.1
168%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
4
2.3
1.1
-42%
-73%
Total
40.0
39.6
-1%
Remarks K2O/N
0.4
1.5
270%
| 19
SAMPLE: LDU 4
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
15
14.0
-7%
P205
15
11.6
-23%
WSP
K20
6
14.1
135%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
4
1.7
0.6
-57%
-84%
Total
40.0
40.3
1%
Remarks K2O/N
0.4
1.0
150%
SAMPLE: SDK 6
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
15
12.2
-19%
P205
15
6.6
-56%
WSP
K20
15
21.0
40%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
0.0
3.4
0.4
Total
45.0
39.8
-11%
Remarks K2O/N
1.0
1.7
75%
| 20
SAMPLE: LDU 1
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
12
10.2
-15%
P205
6
5.5
-8%
WSP
K20
25
23.0
-8%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
3
2.09
2.7
0.2
0.46
-10%
-93%
-78%
Total
48.1
39.4
-18%
Remarks K2O/N
2.1
2.3
10%
SAMPLE: LDU 2
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
12
12
2%
P205
6
5
-19%
WSP
K20
25
24
-4%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
3
2.09
2.6
0.3
0.49
-13%
-89%
-77%
Total
48.1
41.8
-13%
Remarks K2O/N
2.1
2.0
-5%
| 21
SAMPLE: LDU 3
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
13
12.6
-3%
P205
6
5.4
-11%
WSP
K20
27
26.4
-2%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
4
2.09
4.6
0.3
0.4
15%
-92%
-82%
Total
52.1
45.0
-14%
Remarks K2O/N
2.1
2.1
0%
SAMPLE: LDU 6
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
13
15.3
18%
P205
5
13.5
170%
WSP
5
0.0
-100%
K20
32
7.3
-77%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
2
3.4
0.4
69%
-81%
Total
52.0
36.5
-30%
Remarks K2O/N
100% WSP 2.5
0.5
-80%
| 22
SAMPLE: SJ 1
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
14
12.9
-8%
P205
13
11.8
-9%
WSP
K20
9
9.3
3%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
2.5
2.6
1.9
4%
-24%
Total
38.5
35.9
-7%
Remarks K2O/N
0.6
0.7
10%
SAMPLE: SJ 4
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
13
7.8
-40%
P205
6
5.2
-14%
WSP
K20
27
24.9
-8%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
4
2.09
2.0
0.5
0.4
-50%
-87%
-83%
Total
52.1
38.7
-26%
Remarks K2O/N
2.1
3.2
55%
| 23
SAMPLE: SJ 5
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
SAMPLE: TWU 1
DECLARED:
ANALYSED:
Variance %:
N
9
9.1
1%
N
12
10
-19%
P205
6
6.3
6%
P205
6
7
9%
WSP
WSP
K20
18
17.6
-2%
K20
27
26
-4%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
2
0.5
2.7
0.7
0.4
36%
-63%
-26%
Mg0 WS-MgO B2O3
3
0.5
3.3
0.5
0.4
10%
-84%
-24%
Total
35.5
34.1
-4%
Total
48.5
45.8
-11%
Remarks K2O/N
2.0
1.9
-5%
Remarks K2O/N
2.3
2.7
20%
| 24
SUMMARY OF VARIATIONS
Sample #
JB 1
LDU 1
LDU 2
LDU 3
LDU 4
LDU 5
LDU 6
SDK 1
SDK 2
SDK 3
SDK 4
SDK 5
SDK 6
SDK 7
SJ 1
SJ 2
SJ 3
SJ 4
SJ 5
TWU 1
TWU 2
TWU 3
N
-2.5%
-15.0%
1.7%
-3.1%
-6.9%
-6.7%
17.7%
6.7%
-10.0%
3.3%
-27.3%
-67.4%
-18.9%
-5.0%
-7.9%
7.5%
2.5%
-40.3%
0.7%
-19.1%
-25.2%
-9.2%
P2O5
Total
WS
19%
-8%
-19%
-11%
-23%
-65%
170% -100%
153%
4%
27%
-23%
-44%
-56%
-2%
-9%
-94%
-2%
8%
-14%
6%
9%
15%
5%
K2O
K20
-5%
-8%
-4%
-2%
135%
89%
-77%
-25%
4%
-57%
168%
4%
40%
0%
3%
18%
-7%
-8%
-2%
-4%
22%
6%
MgO
Total
32%
-10%
-13%
15%
-57%
30%
69%
-61%
26%
138%
-42%
301%
HWS
-48%
-93%
-89%
-92%
-84%
-62%
-81%
-92%
-80%
-79%
-73%
-67%
4%
26%
17%
-50%
36%
10%
13%
14%
-24%
-70%
-29%
-87%
-63%
-84%
-78%
-82%
B2O3
TOTAL
-73%
-78%
-77%
-82%
-5.3%
-18.1%
-13.1%
-13.5%
0.8%
12.6%
-29.8%
4.3%
-4.8%
-18.3%
-1.0%
-34.2%
-10.8%
-3.1%
-6.8%
4.5%
-5.0%
-25.7%
-3.9%
-11.3%
1.0%
-3.2%
-41%
-40%
-92%
-32%
-57%
-83%
-26%
-24%
-36%
K2O/N
Ratio
0%
10%
-5%
0%
150%
105%
-80%
-30%
15%
-60%
270%
220%
75%
5%
10%
10%
-10%
55%
-5%
20%
65%
15%
| 25
SUMMARY RESULTS (TOTAL 22 SAMPLES)
Nutrient levels
exceeding the
< Lower limit > Upper limit Total outside
both limits
TOTAL (145)
74
51%
27
19%
101
70%
Nitrogen
9
41%
1
5%
10
46%
Phosphorus (Total)
9
41%
6
27%
15
68%
- Water-soluble P
2
100%
2
100%
Potassium
3
14%
6
27%
9
41%
Magnesium - Total
6
29%
13
62%
19
91%
- Hot-water soluble Mg
21
100%
21
100%
Boron
13
100%
13
100%
TOTAL Nutrients
11
50%
12
55%
K2O/N Ratio (variance by >20%)
1
5%
11
50%
| 26
SOURCE OF N
No of samples
Remarks
Urea as main N-source
18
63-92% of total N;
balance was NH4-N;
Samples generally had
higher moisture content
No Urea found
4
NO3-N + NH4-N in ratio of
7:5
None
Required by SIRM
MS 49: 1994, Item 4.2 (c)
Customers may not be
able to choose with the
desired source of N.
Bag markings specifying
source of N
| 27
SUMMARY
1. Of the total of 145 readings taken on the 22 samples, 51% were
below the lower permissible levels, and another 19% went above
the upper levels.
2. The NPKMg+B formula of 14 out of the 22 samples (64%) were
greatly different from that declared. These usually corresponded
with tested K2O/N ratio exceeding 20% from declared K2O/N
ratio.
3. All the samples that contains Mg did not supply the water-soluble
Mg of the declared level, all varying by a great degree.
4. All the samples that contains B did not supply B of the declared
level, all varying by a great degree.
5. Two samples that declared containing water-soluble P had little or
none.
6. Two samples that did not specify any water-soluble P was tested
to contain about 4% WS-P2O5
7. None of the fertilizers sampled declared the N-source on the
packaging as required by SIRIM.
| 28
CONCLUSION
The above survey of the chemical characteristics of 22
locally produced wet-granulation blends supplied to oil
palm plantations in various locations in the country in early
2014 found most of them to contain quite different nutrients
from that declared on the bags.
| 29
Winston Churchill
TO IMPROVE IS TO CHANGE;
TO BE PERFECT IS TO CHANGE OFTEN
| 30
TO CHANGE, YOU NEED TO KNOW
WHAT NEEDS IMPROVING;
TO IMPROVE YOU NEED TO KNOW
HOW
| 31
THANK YOU!
| 32

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME WET

Transcription

Similar documents

ARGUS OFFERS A TOUCH OF CLASS

PDF - Greenfeed® Slow Release Fertilizer

The Argus Flyer - Snow Offensive Security

Rochester NY Area Dance-O

FERTILIZERS

Holiday Inn Tour

Tip-A-Cop

Print - Seaside Realty

Where Historic Charm Meets Modern Comfort. Historic Smithton Inn

Palisades